[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 10:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

thus, "Watch property crime go up"
I di not say it did go up, I said'it would go up
and that you should watch for it.

When what you should say is it *might* go up. But you still based this
claim on "previous legislation" and the "unintended consequences"
thereof.

But then again it *might* not have any consequence at all on property
crime. You're making stuff up.

Either way, it's a weak excuse against more efficient lights. Do you
have stock in an incandescent lighting manufacturer or something? LoL.